The Islamic Supremacists are trying to shut down free speech, and especially speech that reveals who they are, what they are doing, and how they are infiltrating America at senior levels of the Pentagon, FBI, CIA, DoD, DHS.

Ibrahim Hooper, spokesman for the unindicted co-conspirator and front for the Muslim Brotherhood CAIR
(Council on American-Islamic Relations), said, "They're
free to be
anti-Muslim bigots if they like, but it's really up to the organizers of
CPAC to
determine if they're going to allow their conference to be associated
with the
hate-filled views of those who will be speaking."

Why doesn't FOX explain who CAIR is? Why don't they read the documents from the Holy Land trial? Why do they cover for this subversive organization?And why do they run everything they say unchallenged while smearing me in every other paragraph?

Why am I called a bigot by a vocal anti-semite, unchallenged?

Has Hooper called Norquist yet?

Hats off to Lisa DePasquale, who said: "We have different perspectives among the co-sponsor events
and we don't want to censor any group from being able to invite people
to attend
their forums."

A panel discussion on the threat posed by "Islamic
supremacism," Shariah and political correctness has been scheduled for this
week's Conservative Political Action Conference, stirring complaints from some
American Muslims that the exercise amounts to Muslim-bashing.

The two-hour session, titled "Jihad: The Political Third Rail,"
is set for Friday morning, right in the middle of the three-day annual summit of
conservative icons and activists in Washington, D.C.

Scheduled to speak are Steve Coughlin, a former Pentagon
specialist on Islamic law who was fired two years ago, allegedly under pressure
from pro-Muslim officials, and Wafa Sultan, an author and prominent critic of
Islam. The discussion is billed as a window into Islam's "war on free speech,"
the "encroachment" of Shariah -- or Islamic law -- in the West and efforts by
the Muslim Brotherhood to infiltrate American society.

Overall, CPAC is attuned more to political strategy and
domestic issues, but organizers of the "Jihad" session have been trying to stir
the pot with what they call a blunt and objective discussion of Muslims'
attempts to harm the West while silencing criticism.

Mission accomplished. The pot has been stirred.

It's unfortunate that a conservative conference would be in any way associated
with Muslim bashers and Islamophobes," said Ibrahim Hooper, spokesman for the
Council on American-Islamic Relations. "It's a free country. They're free to be
anti-Muslim bigots if they like, but it's really up to the organizers of CPAC to
determine if they're going to allow their conference to be associated with the
hate-filled views of those who will be speaking."

The session appears to be attracting attention on both sides of
the issue. While CAIR and a few blogs have blasted CPAC for putting on the
event, co-host Pamela Geller said she's already gotten hundreds of RSVPs.

"It really will be enormously informative," she said.
"Conservatives want to know."

Geller, publisher of the AtlasShrugs.com blog, is putting on
the talk with Jihad Watch director Robert Spencer. Both are fierce critics of
Islam.

Geller said CPAC and the American Conservative Union, which
sponsors it, do not do enough to draw attention to the issues being discussed
and have tried to avoid such topics in the past.

Referring to a Saturday session titled, "You've Been Lied To:
Why Real Conservatives are Against the War on Terror," she said it was
"incredible" that the only other related session at CPAC was taking the opposite
approach.

Arguing that self-imposed censorship is crippling U.S.
understanding of the wars it is in, she noted that the Pentagon's recent report
into the Fort Hood shooting did not mention possible religious motivations
behind the attack.

"When nowhere in that document was Islam or Jihad mentioned,
then Houston, we have a problem," Geller said. "People need to understand what
is the motivation."

Geller is a lightning rod for controversy, even without a
forum on Islamic Jihad. Her Web site ranges in content from critiques of the
Obama administration to alerts about Muslim terror attacks to more
conspiratorial and outrageous postings. One blog last August questioned why the
media were not reporting President Obama's "strange sexual predilections" and
suggested that Obama traveled to Pakistan in the 1980s "for the drugs and came
back with Jihad."

Geller said she anticipated being depicted as anti-Muslim for
the CPAC session, but was not concerned about the event drifting over the line
from thoughtful discussion on political correctness to virulent tirade on Islam
as a whole.

"I'm not worried, because if everything is racism, then
nothing is racism," she said.

Geller stirred a bit of a controversy at CPAC last year by
trying to bring in Dutch anti-Islamic activist and lawmaker Geert Wilders --
though details of the dust-up are unclear and conflicting.

Wilders, who is now facing hate speech charges in Europe, was
apparently supposed to be honored with an award, but that was nixed shortly
before the conference started -- a decision that coincided with the publication
of a Newsweek article in which Spencer was quoted criticizing CPAC for not
scheduling a panel on "the threat from radical Islam."

Though Spencer and Geller point to that article as the
breaking point, CPAC Director Lisa De Pasquale said it was much ado about
nothing.

She attributed what she called the "miscommunication" to a
scheduling conflict and said it "all worked out for the best," since Wilders
spoke in a side room at the conference anyway.

This time around, De Pasquale said she's not concerned about
any controversy generated by the Jihad panel event. She said that while the
discussion is a part of CPAC, "it is not an official CPAC event." Rather, it's
hosted by one of the CPAC co-sponsors, David Horowitz' Freedom Center.

"We have different perspectives among the co-sponsor events
and we don't want to censor any group from being able to invite people to attend
their forums," De Pasquale said.

In any case, [FOX reporter] Berger's piece is ironic: it is an object lesson in what
happens to those who dare to speak the truth about the global jihad and
Islamic supremacism. And so it is a vivid illustration of why our
conference is so urgently needed. ...

Notice that Berger portrays the Islamic war on free speech as
something we are merely claiming is taking place. He probably made no effort
to find out whether such a thing was really going on at all. He
probably has no idea that the Organization of the Islamic Conference
(OIC), to which Obama just sent a special envoy, has for years now
spearheaded an effort at the UN to compel member states to criminalize
what it calls "defamation of religions," but by which it clearly means
any honest discussion of the texts and teachings of Islam that
jihadists invoke to justify violence and supremacism. In 2008,
Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, the Secretary General of the OIC, which is the
largest voting bloc at the United Nations today, warned the West about
"red lines that should not be crossed" regarding free speech about
Islam and terrorism.

But Judson Berger apparently knows or cares nothing about any of this. He thinks we're just stirring the pot.

The Islamic Supremacists are trying to shut down free speech, and especially speech that reveals who they are, what they are doing, and how they are infiltrating America at senior levels of the Pentagon, FBI, CIA, DoD, DHS.

Ibrahim Hooper, spokesman for the unindicted co-conspirator and front for the Muslim Brotherhood CAIR
(Council on American-Islamic Relations), said, "They're
free to be
anti-Muslim bigots if they like, but it's really up to the organizers of
CPAC to
determine if they're going to allow their conference to be associated
with the
hate-filled views of those who will be speaking."

Why doesn't FOX explain who CAIR is? Why don't they read the documents from the Holy Land trial? Why do they cover for this subversive organization?And why do they run everything they say unchallenged while smearing me in every other paragraph?

Why am I called a bigot by a vocal anti-semite, unchallenged?

Has Hooper called Norquist yet?

Hats off to Lisa DePasquale, who said: "We have different perspectives among the co-sponsor events
and we don't want to censor any group from being able to invite people
to attend
their forums."

A panel discussion on the threat posed by "Islamic
supremacism," Shariah and political correctness has been scheduled for this
week's Conservative Political Action Conference, stirring complaints from some
American Muslims that the exercise amounts to Muslim-bashing.

The two-hour session, titled "Jihad: The Political Third Rail,"
is set for Friday morning, right in the middle of the three-day annual summit of
conservative icons and activists in Washington, D.C.

Scheduled to speak are Steve Coughlin, a former Pentagon
specialist on Islamic law who was fired two years ago, allegedly under pressure
from pro-Muslim officials, and Wafa Sultan, an author and prominent critic of
Islam. The discussion is billed as a window into Islam's "war on free speech,"
the "encroachment" of Shariah -- or Islamic law -- in the West and efforts by
the Muslim Brotherhood to infiltrate American society.

Overall, CPAC is attuned more to political strategy and
domestic issues, but organizers of the "Jihad" session have been trying to stir
the pot with what they call a blunt and objective discussion of Muslims'
attempts to harm the West while silencing criticism.

Mission accomplished. The pot has been stirred.

It's unfortunate that a conservative conference would be in any way associated
with Muslim bashers and Islamophobes," said Ibrahim Hooper, spokesman for the
Council on American-Islamic Relations. "It's a free country. They're free to be
anti-Muslim bigots if they like, but it's really up to the organizers of CPAC to
determine if they're going to allow their conference to be associated with the
hate-filled views of those who will be speaking."

The session appears to be attracting attention on both sides of
the issue. While CAIR and a few blogs have blasted CPAC for putting on the
event, co-host Pamela Geller said she's already gotten hundreds of RSVPs.

"It really will be enormously informative," she said.
"Conservatives want to know."

Geller, publisher of the AtlasShrugs.com blog, is putting on
the talk with Jihad Watch director Robert Spencer. Both are fierce critics of
Islam.

Geller said CPAC and the American Conservative Union, which
sponsors it, do not do enough to draw attention to the issues being discussed
and have tried to avoid such topics in the past.

Referring to a Saturday session titled, "You've Been Lied To:
Why Real Conservatives are Against the War on Terror," she said it was
"incredible" that the only other related session at CPAC was taking the opposite
approach.

Arguing that self-imposed censorship is crippling U.S.
understanding of the wars it is in, she noted that the Pentagon's recent report
into the Fort Hood shooting did not mention possible religious motivations
behind the attack.

"When nowhere in that document was Islam or Jihad mentioned,
then Houston, we have a problem," Geller said. "People need to understand what
is the motivation."

Geller is a lightning rod for controversy, even without a
forum on Islamic Jihad. Her Web site ranges in content from critiques of the
Obama administration to alerts about Muslim terror attacks to more
conspiratorial and outrageous postings. One blog last August questioned why the
media were not reporting President Obama's "strange sexual predilections" and
suggested that Obama traveled to Pakistan in the 1980s "for the drugs and came
back with Jihad."

Geller said she anticipated being depicted as anti-Muslim for
the CPAC session, but was not concerned about the event drifting over the line
from thoughtful discussion on political correctness to virulent tirade on Islam
as a whole.

"I'm not worried, because if everything is racism, then
nothing is racism," she said.

Geller stirred a bit of a controversy at CPAC last year by
trying to bring in Dutch anti-Islamic activist and lawmaker Geert Wilders --
though details of the dust-up are unclear and conflicting.

Wilders, who is now facing hate speech charges in Europe, was
apparently supposed to be honored with an award, but that was nixed shortly
before the conference started -- a decision that coincided with the publication
of a Newsweek article in which Spencer was quoted criticizing CPAC for not
scheduling a panel on "the threat from radical Islam."

Though Spencer and Geller point to that article as the
breaking point, CPAC Director Lisa De Pasquale said it was much ado about
nothing.

She attributed what she called the "miscommunication" to a
scheduling conflict and said it "all worked out for the best," since Wilders
spoke in a side room at the conference anyway.

This time around, De Pasquale said she's not concerned about
any controversy generated by the Jihad panel event. She said that while the
discussion is a part of CPAC, "it is not an official CPAC event." Rather, it's
hosted by one of the CPAC co-sponsors, David Horowitz' Freedom Center.

"We have different perspectives among the co-sponsor events
and we don't want to censor any group from being able to invite people to attend
their forums," De Pasquale said.

In any case, [FOX reporter] Berger's piece is ironic: it is an object lesson in what
happens to those who dare to speak the truth about the global jihad and
Islamic supremacism. And so it is a vivid illustration of why our
conference is so urgently needed. ...

Notice that Berger portrays the Islamic war on free speech as
something we are merely claiming is taking place. He probably made no effort
to find out whether such a thing was really going on at all. He
probably has no idea that the Organization of the Islamic Conference
(OIC), to which Obama just sent a special envoy, has for years now
spearheaded an effort at the UN to compel member states to criminalize
what it calls "defamation of religions," but by which it clearly means
any honest discussion of the texts and teachings of Islam that
jihadists invoke to justify violence and supremacism. In 2008,
Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, the Secretary General of the OIC, which is the
largest voting bloc at the United Nations today, warned the West about
"red lines that should not be crossed" regarding free speech about
Islam and terrorism.

But Judson Berger apparently knows or cares nothing about any of this. He thinks we're just stirring the pot.